Monrovia – Just minutes before jury selection was set to begin in the corruption trial of former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah and four other former government officials, their legal team filed a motion seeking to have the charges dismissed.
The high-profile case stems from allegations of economic sabotage, theft of property, criminal conspiracy, and the illegal disbursement of public funds.
The motion, filed by Tweah’s defense team, argues that their clients were operating within the scope of their official duties as members of the National Security Council (NSC) and should therefore be shielded from prosecution.
The defendants—Cllr. Nyenati Tuan, former Acting Minister of Justice and Attorney General; Stanley S. Ford, former Director of the Financial Intelligence Unit; Jefferson Karmoh, former National Security Adviser to ex-President George Weah; and D. Moses P. Cooper, former FIA Controller—are accused of withdrawing US$500,000 meant for IT equipment procurement but failing to account for the funds. The Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) and the Ministry of Justice initiated the case after an investigation into the alleged misuse of funds from the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL).
Defense Argues Lack of Jurisdiction
In a motion filed before Presiding Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie, the defense team, comprising Cllr. M. Wilkins Wright, Cllr. James N. Kumeh, Cllr. Norris Lester Tweah, Weifueh A. Sayeh, and Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson, argued that the indictment should be dismissed on grounds that the alleged transactions fell under national security operations, making them immune from judicial scrutiny.
“The Movants were all members and agents of the National Security Council (NSC) of Liberia who were responsible for carrying out the functions of the National Security Council of Liberia, chaired by the President of Liberia, consistent with the National Security Council Reform and Intelligence Act of 2011,” the motion states.
Citing Section 11, subsection (d) of the NSC Reform and Intelligence Act of 2011, the defense claims that funds allocated for national security purposes are exempt from regular financial regulations:
“Funds made available to them may be expended for any purpose necessary to carry out its functions, and may be expended without regard to the provision of laws relating to expenditure of government funds if essential for vital National Security Interest, unless specifically prohibited by other law.”
According to the defense, the US$500,000 and 1.055 billion Liberian dollars in question were withdrawn and “applied towards National Security purposes by the National Security Council of Liberia.” The lawyers insist that the Liberian judiciary lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any transactions related to NSC expenditures, as these are considered classified operations.
Prosecution Pushes Back, Demands Financial Records
Government prosecutors, led by the Ministry of Justice and the LACC, strongly opposed the motion, arguing that national security concerns cannot override financial accountability. They have formally requested subpoenas duces tecum to compel the Central Bank of Liberia (CBL) and the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA) to produce transaction records detailing the withdrawal and utilization of the funds.
“This is not about classified information; this is about accountability for public funds,” a prosecutor told journalists following the court session.
The prosecution maintains that the indictment against the defendants is based on economic sabotage and that the accused individuals should not be allowed to use national security laws as a shield for financial crimes.
Executive Immunity and National Security Debate
The defense motion invokes past legal precedents, including Bryant v. RL (2007), Porte v. Dennis (1947), Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), and Trump v. United States (2024), to argue that officials executing national security directives cannot be compelled by any court to disclose classified financial information.
“The investigation conducted by the LACC, from which grew the Indictment now subject of this motion and the case currently venued before this Court, surround activities and actions of members of the National Security Council of Liberia, which activities, under the laws cited supra in this motion, prohibit the disclosure of information which cannot be subject of judicial review,” the motion argues.
The lawyers further contend that compelling their clients to testify “would violate the fundamental rights of the Defendants guaranteed under the 1986 Constitution of the Republic of Liberia.”
Additionally, they argue that the indictment is constitutionally defective, stating:
“The indictment improperly seeks to criminalize constitutional, national security, statutory, and discretionary acts performed by officials while in the discharge of their official responsibilities to further national security interest of the Republic. As such, any such judicial process, as now being contemplated by this Indictment, to review or ascertain the actions or activities of members of the National Security Council potentially risk exposing or disclosing classified and confidential government communications and intelligence. Such disclosure would be a direct contravention of the National Security Council Act.”
Discussion about this post